Zone1 Do you believe in Free Speech

[Rigby5]

I don't use Twatter, so it's none of my concern. I think it should all be banned. A position I've made clear.

Whether or not you use Twitter, it has great influence.
We need means of better communications in a world that has become increasingly isolated.

 

[rightwinger]

Actions that didn't do anything to actually stop the transfer of power.

He's being persecuted for being on the wrong team.

You mean as long as Biden got to be President anything goes?

Trump refused a peaceful transfer of power and tried to steal the election

 

[dblack]

It IS a right to be able to go door to door for politics and religion.

Not if they have a "No Canvassers or No Trespassing" sign.

The owner can tell you to leave after they have identified themselves, but going to the front door and knocking can never be trespassing.

Gonna need a link for that claim. Are you just making shit up again? All I'm seeing is some hair splitting on whether they are "solicitors" or not. But No Trespassing or No Canvassing do apply.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Whether or not you use Twitter, it has great influence.
We need means of better communications in a world that has become increasingly isolated.

Arguably, one could say social media as a platform has dramatically increased the isolation, not stifled it.

 

[Rigby5]

Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for what you say

Doesn’t mean what you say can have no consequences.
Libel is still prosecutable
Making a threat is still prosecutable

Trump was free to say the election was stolen. If that was all he did he would not be in trouble

But a fake elector scheme is prosecutable
Pressuring state electors is prosecutable
Telling lies that create a riot

Not free speech

But obviously there can not possibly have been any "fake electors".
The vote count was known the night of the election.
The electors had already been selected and known to congress.
The alternate electors had also already been picked, and had nothing to do with Trump.
I have read the indictments, but there is absolutely no explanation as to how this supposed elector scheme could possibly have ever worked?
You would not only have to kidnap the real electors, but all of congress would have to be in on the scam.

There is no such crime as "pressuring" state electors.
They are supposed to already be committed and their vote known.
Faithless electors are not only rare, but often fined or punished even.

It would be wrong to tell lies in order to create a riot normally, but not in the case of elections, where historically they have been so awful.
Like the 2000 election with butterfly ballots, 40,000 illegally denied their right to vote, etc.
And currently they may be just as bad, because of the heavy use of electronics that are easily manipulated, like voting computers.

 

[Rigby5]

Not if they have a "No Canvassers or No Trespassing" sign.

Gonna need a link for that claim. Are you just making shit up again? All I'm seeing is some hair splitting on whether they are "solicitors" or not. But No Trespassing or No Canvassing do apply.

Wrong.
Signs like "no canvassers", "no soliciting", "no trespassing" do NOT apply to government, political, bill collectors, or religious organizations.
That means the city or other agencies can serve a summons, Jehovah's Witnesses can try to save you, and political organizations can see if you have any questions for them.
That is the law.
I did some of these things, so had to read up.
The SCOTUS has spoken.
You home may be your castle, but you are required to allow the public to knock on your door.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The culture warriors are destroying this country. Tearing down the foundations of Constitutional government in a vain attempt to force their values on others.

We will not let MAGA do that.

 

[The Duke]

This is a question mainly for so-called liberals.


Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights? Or do you support censorship? Also, do you believe corporations should have no right to censor free speech, or should they be doing that? (This is separate from First Amendment, it is just the idea of free speech.)



For example: If someone says an election is stolen, would you defend the right of that person to say it? Or do you believe that person should be silenced, either by the government or a corporation?

Is It okay for it to be labeled “misinformation“ or to be banned entirely? Should the person even be allowed to say it?

Of Course then we get into who is actually labeling something “misinformation”, or making the decision to delete/ban/block such remarks. That is of course censorship. You cannot claim to support “free speech”, and support these things. So who gets to make the decision of what is misinformation or not? Must be someone wise. Perhaps we can call that person an “Oracle of Truth” or something.


.



.



.

For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen. That President Trump was “illegitimate“. That he only won because of “Russia collusion”.

Did she have the right to say these things? Should she have been banned off Twitter? Was her saying these things ”misinformation?” Was it a “threat to democracy?” Should she had been arrested for saying such things?

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying she should be banned off Twitter. No one demanded social media and news agencies call the claims “misinformation” or to delete them.. Instead, Republicans just laughed it off. It didn’t piss us off in the least, it was just pathetic. They ridiculed her for it.


Now look at how Dems react to President Trump saying an election was rigged. Suddenly this is called “misinformation”, and of course “a threat to democracy”. They fully support censorship of Donald Trump and even just random people on the internet. Now they have arrested him for practicing free speech.

How can one claim they support Free Speech if they support censorship?

Hellz yeah I believe in free speech. It ain't cool when commies abuse the privilege, though.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.

Link.

 

[dblack]

Link.

Here, I found one: Political Canvassing Laws Every Campaigner Must Be Aware Of

1. If a property has “No canvassers” or “No Trespassing” signs, you do not have the right to knock on that door.

 

[Batcat]

This is a question mainly for so-called liberals.


Do you support free speech, meaning the government has no right to infringe on it, to censor you, or punish you for exercising your free speech rights? Or do you support censorship? Also, do you believe corporations should have no right to censor free speech, or should they be doing that? (This is separate from First Amendment, it is just the idea of free speech.)



For example: If someone says an election is stolen, would you defend the right of that person to say it? Or do you believe that person should be silenced, either by the government or a corporation?

Is It okay for it to be labeled “misinformation“ or to be banned entirely? Should the person even be allowed to say it?

Of Course then we get into who is actually labeling something “misinformation”, or making the decision to delete/ban/block such remarks. That is of course censorship. You cannot claim to support “free speech”, and support these things. So who gets to make the decision of what is misinformation or not? Must be someone wise. Perhaps we can call that person an “Oracle of Truth” or something.


.



.



.

For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen. That President Trump was “illegitimate“. That he only won because of “Russia collusion”.

Did she have the right to say these things? Should she have been banned off Twitter? Was her saying these things ”misinformation?” Was it a “threat to democracy?” Should she had been arrested for saying such things?

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying she should be banned off Twitter. No one demanded social media and news agencies call the claims “misinformation” or to delete them.. Instead, Republicans just laughed it off. It didn’t piss us off in the least, it was just pathetic. They ridiculed her for it.


Now look at how Dems react to President Trump saying an election was rigged. Suddenly this is called “misinformation”, and of course “a threat to democracy”. They fully support censorship of Donald Trump and even just random people on the internet. Now they have arrested him for practicing free speech.

How can one claim they support Free Speech if they support censorship?

Democrats get to enjoy free speech but not Trump.

If I was a Democrat that would sound fair to me.

Fortunately I am not a Democrat.

Democrats want to take my freedoms away too. If they win big in 2024 they likely will tear the Constitution up like Pelosi tore up Trump’s State of the Union speech. Then they will turn our nation into a Marxist socialist workers’ Paradise with re-education camps for people like me in Alaska.

Karl Marx will have his statue in Washington D.C.

 

[Rigby5]

Link.

This was the first hit.
Let me know if you want more or better.
{...
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) stands as the first case in which the Supreme Court applied First Amendment freedom of religion rights to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, and his sons had canvassed individuals in New Haven, Connecticut, without first obtaining a permit.

Jehovah's Witness man convicted after door-to-door preaching​

The state charged Cantwell and his sons with a number of offenses including soliciting without a permit and inciting breach of the peace. Cantwell’s conviction of the latter charge stemmed from an incident in which he had approached two Roman Catholics and played a record denouncing their church.

The Court ruled in Cantwell’s favor.

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Owen Roberts observed that the First Amendment “embraces two concepts, — freedom to believe and freedom to act. . . . The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”
...}

Clearly you cannot have a democracy if you cannot exchange ideas with people.
Originally we had the right of a soapbox in the park, but that no longer exists and new means of expressing beliefs in public are essential.

 

[Rigby5]

You mean as long as Biden got to be President anything goes?

Trump refused a peaceful transfer of power and tried to steal the election

There is no indication there was ever anything that happened or could have happened that could have prevented the peaceful transfer of power.

What specifically do you mean?
If you mean that alternate electors already existed, that is normal procedure, and can not possibly abuse the election results in any way.
If you mean calls to ask for recounts, that also is legal and benign.
If you mean the Jan 6 protest, that was not unreasonable, given how easily voting computers can so easily be hacked.

 

[The Duke]

This was the first hit.
Let me know if you want more or better.
{...
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) stands as the first case in which the Supreme Court applied First Amendment freedom of religion rights to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, and his sons had canvassed individuals in New Haven, Connecticut, without first obtaining a permit.

Jehovah's Witness man convicted after door-to-door preaching​

The state charged Cantwell and his sons with a number of offenses including soliciting without a permit and inciting breach of the peace. Cantwell’s conviction of the latter charge stemmed from an incident in which he had approached two Roman Catholics and played a record denouncing their church.

The Court ruled in Cantwell’s favor.

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Owen Roberts observed that the First Amendment “embraces two concepts, — freedom to believe and freedom to act. . . . The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”
...}

Clearly you cannot have a democracy if you cannot exchange ideas with people.
Originally we had the right of a soapbox in the park, but that no longer exists and new means of expressing beliefs in public are essential.

You're alright. I don't agree with ya, but you're alright.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

You home may be your castle, but you are required to allow the public to knock on your door.

The trespassing laws vary from state to state, but, in a nutshell, no you aren't.

Fuck off commie. You don't even know what America is, you stupid fuck.

It may not be your fault, but that ain't my problem, so fuck you. You better learn or get left behind.

Do you know where you are? Zone 1. Cut it out.

 

[dblack]

This was the first hit.
Let me know if you want more or better.
{...
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) stands as the first case in which the Supreme Court applied First Amendment freedom of religion rights to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, and his sons had canvassed individuals in New Haven, Connecticut, without first obtaining a permit.

Jehovah's Witness man convicted after door-to-door preaching​

The state charged Cantwell and his sons with a number of offenses including soliciting without a permit and inciting breach of the peace. Cantwell’s conviction of the latter charge stemmed from an incident in which he had approached two Roman Catholics and played a record denouncing their church.

The Court ruled in Cantwell’s favor.

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Owen Roberts observed that the First Amendment “embraces two concepts, — freedom to believe and freedom to act. . . . The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”
...}

Clearly you cannot have a democracy if you cannot exchange ideas with people.
Originally we had the right of a soapbox in the park, but that no longer exists and new means of expressing beliefs in public are essential.

Yep. That's the kind of thing I was finding, and, of course, it doesn't back up your claim. They were charged with soliciting without a permit. They still have to respect No Trespassing and No Canvassing signs.

Your notion that the First Amendment gives people the right to force themselves on others is bullshit.

 

[dblack]

You're alright. I don't agree with ya, but you're alright.

No, he's not. Read it again. The Court struck down a law requiring them to get a permit. That's all.

 

[Coyote]

Okie Dokie …. Romper Room Denizens, attention please!

You are in the CLEAN DEBATE ZONE….the Flame Zone is downstairs and to the left.

There is a clean up in process so remember to use your indoor voices!

 

[The Duke]

Okie Dokie …. Romper Room Denizens, attention please!

You are in the CLEAN DEBATE ZONE….the Flame Zone is downstairs and to the left.

There is a clean up in process so remember to use your indoor voices!

I dood it!

And I'm more of a "Captain Kangaroo" type.

I won't mention the other dude, because that is way too area specific.

Here's to Mr. Green Jeans!

 

[Rigby5]

Link.

I did not spend much time, but this should clear it up?
Let me know if you want more.

{...
In Florida v. Jardines (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a front porch is a Fourth Amendment protected area but that there is an “implied license” allowing the police to walk up to the front door and knock in at least some cases. If the police are just coming to talk to the homeowner, the court concluded, that’s within the implied license and no Fourth Amendment search occurs. Homeowners implicitly consent to people coming to knock on the door and talk to them; that’s why they have doorbells.
...}